|Title||Thinking is bad: Implications of human error research for spreadsheet research and practice|
|Authors||Raymond R. Panko|
In the spreadsheet error community, both academics and practitioners generally have ignored the rich findings produced by a century of human error research.
These findings can suggest ways to reduce errors; we can then test these suggestions empirically.
In addition, research on human error seems to suggest that several common prescriptions and expectations for reducing errors are likely to be incorrect.
Among the key conclusions from human error research are that thinking is bad, that spreadsheets are not the cause of spreadsheet errors, and that reducing errors is extremely difficult.
Error detection rates are different for the different types of errors: slip/lapse, formula, and modeling.
This research leads to three fundamental conclusions: